|
Post by radiant on Sept 24, 2009 19:58:47 GMT
I dont thing anybody who has studied the topic denies recent warming surely? Then why is a newspaper article that does just that cited? And why do so many people attack glc when he points out it's wrong? There's a lot of "trying to get away with it" going on I think fairly reasonable people object to the idea that 30 years is some meaningful figure in climate terms GLC for example has gone to some lengths to minimise the idea there was a little ice age that we can recover from Reasonable people also object to being told that C02 is a toxic gas while almost no mention is made of the much bigger significance of water as the most powerful and abundant greenhouse gas I think reasonable people feel they are being cheated by people like GLC So that might account for some of the hostility and emotion that comes into it perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 24, 2009 21:28:08 GMT
Which must be due to CO2 as you can't think of anything else that fits your view of the 'facts'... Can you think of "anything else"? ...therefore its fine to tax industries into bankruptcy (quote Obama) or rather drive them all to China.I don't remember saying that. Can you find anywhere where I've mentioned taxes. " Can you think of "anything else"?" Given that Shaviv's paper shows that OHC varies at least 6 times more than expected with TSI variations - I would say that something else almost certainly is a driver. I personally think that the hydrologic cycle and the associated convective effects are both more powerful and have more effects than are currently simplistically assumed. This is why I refer to the Kelvin fallacy. Note that pointing out a logic flaw in someone's argument does not mean I have to replace the entire argument.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 24, 2009 21:54:12 GMT
Given that Shaviv's paper shows that OHC varies at least 6 times more than expected with TSI variations - I would say that something else almost certainly is a driver. I personally think that the hydrologic cycle and the associated convective effects are both more powerful and have more effects than are currently simplistically assumed.
Shaviv suggests there is an "amplification mechanism" but doesn't say what it is. It seems he can't think of anything else either.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 24, 2009 22:09:57 GMT
I think fairly reasonable people object to the idea that 30 years is some meaningful figure in climate terms
It's meaningful in the context of being the warmest 30 year period in the past ~400 years and probably much longer.
GLC for example has gone to some lengths to minimise the idea there was a little ice age that we can recover from
I haven't gone to any "lengths". I've challenged different posters to define the period of the LIA and the responses indicate a lack of consistency. You say the LIA existed but I'm not sure how you know since you have no trust in the thermometer record.
Can you tell how long the LIA lasted? How can you be sure? Do you have a theory for what caused the LIA?
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Sept 24, 2009 23:13:27 GMT
What is meant by "recent warming"? 1. The last 12 years? 2. Since 1979? 3. Since the 1930's?
The answer to the question "is it warmer?" differs depending on the time frame: 1. No; 2. Yes; 3. No.
The answer to the question "is the trend warmer?" based on those same three time frames: 1. No; 2. No; 3. No.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Sept 24, 2009 23:37:46 GMT
I think fairly reasonable people object to the idea that 30 years is some meaningful figure in climate termsIt's meaningful in the context of being the warmest 30 year period in the past ~400 years and probably much longer. GLC for example has gone to some lengths to minimise the idea there was a little ice age that we can recover fromI haven't gone to any "lengths". I've challenged different posters to define the period of the LIA and the responses indicate a lack of consistency. You say the LIA existed but I'm not sure how you know since you have no trust in the thermometer record. Can you tell how long the LIA lasted? How can you be sure? Do you have a theory for what caused the LIA? GLC, You simply have no way of making that assertion based on facts. We don't need thermometers alone for the LIA. We have glacier records. But a general rule is when a new theory about how something works requires a complete rewrite of history, it is probably good to at least take a good critical look at the theory. I guess you are one of those people who assert that Greenland was not warmer prior to the LIA and warmer than it is now?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 25, 2009 0:50:03 GMT
I think fairly reasonable people object to the idea that 30 years is some meaningful figure in climate termsIt's meaningful in the context of being the warmest 30 year period in the past ~400 years and probably much longer. LOL! The evidence of that just got eaten by the dog!! How much warmer is it than 1940? One cannot reliably answer that as the science that suggested it might be warmer now is non-replicable. . . .apparently intentionally. Some scientist who alleges pouring a large portion of his career into has found he forgot the most important element in his work. What a dumbass!! Again we find our governments shoveling money to incompetents!
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Sept 25, 2009 1:01:39 GMT
Climate researchers now predict the planet will warm by 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century even if the world's leaders fulfill their most ambitious climate pledges, a faster and broader scale of climate change than forecast just two years ago, according to a report released Thursday by the United Nations Environment Program. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/24/AR2009092402602.htmlThis is starting to seem more and more incredible (or, not credible).
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 25, 2009 1:05:27 GMT
Given that Shaviv's paper shows that OHC varies at least 6 times more than expected with TSI variations - I would say that something else almost certainly is a driver. I personally think that the hydrologic cycle and the associated convective effects are both more powerful and have more effects than are currently simplistically assumed. Shaviv suggests there is an "amplification mechanism" but doesn't say what it is. It seems he can't think of anything else either. glc - the Kelvin Fallacy's main corollary is the denial of empirically observed phenomena as the mechanisms behind the phenomena are not known - as the observers consider themselves omniscient - qed - the real world is not correct. Is this _ really_ your position? If not then you accept that the OHC is more sensitive to changes in TSI than current models allow for. Hence much of the increase in heat content then warming in the current models is incorrectly ascribed to other sources.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 25, 2009 6:07:47 GMT
I think fairly reasonable people object to the idea that 30 years is some meaningful figure in climate termsIt's meaningful in the context of being the warmest 30 year period in the past ~400 years and probably much longer. GLC for example has gone to some lengths to minimise the idea there was a little ice age that we can recover fromI haven't gone to any "lengths". I've challenged different posters to define the period of the LIA and the responses indicate a lack of consistency. You say the LIA existed but I'm not sure how you know since you have no trust in the thermometer record. Can you tell how long the LIA lasted? How can you be sure? Do you have a theory for what caused the LIA? Your methodology is to trap people so that they appear to be unreliable witnesses For you the truth is irrelevant All that matters is your agenda
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 25, 2009 7:08:05 GMT
GLC for example has gone to some lengths to minimise the idea there was a little ice age that we can recover fromI haven't gone to any "lengths". I've challenged different posters to define the period of the LIA and the responses indicate a lack of consistency. You say the LIA existed but I'm not sure how you know since you have no trust in the thermometer record. Can you tell how long the LIA lasted? How can you be sure? Do you have a theory for what caused the LIA? Thermometers are probably not the best measure. How about skating on the Thames? Failure of harvests? Seems we can't measure temperatures accurately even today with thermometers. In my view thats even our problem today. We have charlatans predicting doom and gloom and empirically we haven't seen zip. Hurricanes are down, tornados are down, sea level isn't visibly up (having lived on the Pacific ocean shore for 60 years), some years its still too cold (and sometimes too warm) for certain sealife. . . .any other negatives to look for?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 25, 2009 7:36:42 GMT
glc - the Kelvin Fallacy's main corollary is the denial of empirically observed phenomena as the mechanisms behind the phenomena are not known - as the observers consider themselves omniscient - qed - the real world is not correct.
Is this _really_ your position? No - but there is already a plausible explanation for the observed phenomena. Currently that explanation trumps other less tangible theories. If Shaviv can explain and/or demonstrate the "mechanism" then may be we can reconsider it's worth. A the moment it comes under the category of speculative drivel. Is Shaviv's mechanism in sync with TSI. If so why hasn't OHC dropped to the levels of the 1970s. TSI actually peaked in the late 1950s though it remained relatively high until the early 1990s. But I just wonder how much longer you're going to keep grabbing at this straw in order to explain the continuing warming since then. The recent (~100 years) surface/OHC warming fits pretty broadly the pattern I would expect from increasing ghgs and an oscillating ocean influence. The sun appears to play no part whatsoever. I don't have much time for Tamino (I've been banned by him) but he is correct on a number of things. This is a plot of the average temperatures of 17 stations before, during and after the Dalton Minimum (1790-1820) tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/17temps.jpgTamino found exactly what I've found. There was nothing unusual about the Dalton Minimum. Interestingly Tamino's plot does show ~30 year troughs in the 1780s, 1810s and 1840s which could be the result of PDO, AMO etc fluctuations. Where is the TSI influence? Where was the TSI influence in the 1950s? Where was it in the ~1940s If not then you accept that the OHC is more sensitive to changes in TSI than current models allow for. Hence much of the increase in heat content then warming in the current models is incorrectly ascribed to other sources. I don't accept that OHC is particularly sensitive to TSI changes. whether it's sensitive to insolation changes is a another matter, but you're a very long way from showing that this has, in fact, been a significant factor in 20th century (or 19th century) climate.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 25, 2009 7:45:47 GMT
GLC, You simply have no way of making that assertion based on facts. We don't need thermometers alone for the LIA. We have glacier records. But a general rule is when a new theory about how something works requires a complete rewrite of history, it is probably good to at least take a good critical look at the theory. I guess you are one of those people who assert that Greenland was not warmer prior to the LIA and warmer than it is now?
You still haven't answered the question, i.e. how long did the the LIA last. I've seen glacier records, by the way, and it's far from clear that the LIA was a simultaneous global event. In any case I thought glacier melt had very little to do with temperature. That's what I keep hearing about Kilimanjaro.
Is there a different rule for advancing glaciers?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 25, 2009 7:56:36 GMT
Thermometers are probably not the best measure.
No - of course not.
How about skating on the Thames?
which happened - how many times? most of these events took place before London was fully urbanised. 1963 was one of the coldest (and longest) winters on record but the Thames only froze over upstream away from central London.
Failure of harvests?
There has always been crop failure - mainly due to the weather. Better technology ensures this is less problematic now.
Seems we can't measure temperatures accurately even today with thermometers.
Can't we -why? or is that simply what you want to believe. I would suggest we can measure temperatures with sufficient accuracy for our purposes. Can we measure it with microwave sounding units?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 25, 2009 8:01:31 GMT
I haven't gone to any "lengths". I've challenged different posters to define the period of the LIA and the responses indicate a lack of consistency. You say the LIA existed but I'm not sure how you know since you have no trust in the thermometer record.
Can you tell how long the LIA lasted? How can you be sure? Do you have a theory for what caused the LIA?
Your methodology is to trap people so that they appear to be unreliable witnesses
...and yours is to avoid th question (s)
For you the truth is irrelevant
On the contrary. I am looking for the truth. That is why I asked the question(s).
I assume you don't know the answers.
|
|